Hi Trumpster,

What's your point? Trying to justify one wrong by pointing to other wrongs. Just as you claimed it was okay for the Zionists to murder 70,000 innocent Palestinians, because the Palestinians had murdered 1,200 innocent Jews. One wrong doesn't justify another wrong. I suppose that concept is too hard for most knuckle draggers to understand.

You didn't defend the Old Fart and his claim there was never "slavery" in Australia.

"What's your point? Trying to justify one wrong by pointing to other wrongs."

I made my point from the outset. Obviously it passed you by. The point is that, if you are going to demand reparations for one incidence of slavery, consistency demands that you demand it for all incidents. So if they want reparations for the North American slavery they should also be demanding it from the South Americans, the Libyans, the Turks, the Saudis, various tribes in Africa, the Chinese and the Maori.

But they aren't seeking reparations from any of them. Just the US. And when I say they, I mean the carpetbaggers in the US and in the UN. And that proves that its not about reparations or righting wrongs but is just about another, yet another, money grab.

"Just as you claimed it was okay for the Zionists to murder 70,000 innocent Palestinians, because the Palestinians had murdered 1,200 innocent Jews."

Well I never said any of that. Just another one of your fabrications. I never said it was murder. I proved to you that it wasn't 70000. And the deaths in the war weren't retribution for the October 7 massacre.

"You didn't defend the Old Fart and his claim there was never "slavery" in Australia."

I've said on these pages for over a decade that there was always slavery in Australia, primarily being the slavery forced on aboriginal women by the male tribal elders and the slavery enforced on women and children captured in war among the tribes.

Hi Trumpster,

"there was always slavery in Australia, primarily being the slavery forced on aboriginal women by the male tribal elders and the slavery enforced on women and children captured in war among the tribes." I have no evidence for tribal slavery, but it is possible. Your evidence for tribal slavery is?

I mentioned three other forms of Australian "slavery" post 1788, all well documented, convicts, Islanders and Aboriginals. Since your fellow Trumpite ttbn claimed no slavery in Australia, and since he wouldn't have a clue, maybe you could respond on his behalf. Tell him he's all piss and wind, or agree with the Old Fart, and prove me wrong.

"Your evidence for tribal slavery is?"

Now I think you're just taking the piss. This, by my count, is the 6th time you've asked me for evidence of aboriginal slavery. And each time I give it, you just drop the subject and forget all the evidence. If you want the evidence go back and find the previous occasions I've listed it.

As to calling convicts slaves...that's a bit of a stretch and if they were slaves then all the inmates of Australia's various goals are also slaves

Hi Trumpster,

I agreed it was possible, that tribal slavery existed in Australia. Yes the Maori of Aotearoa had both captured and traded slaves. I don't see what the relevance is of tribal slavery, the topic refers to African slavers. As for your evidence, it was only what you claimed as being "fact", no actual facts.

"As for your evidence, it was only what you claimed as being "fact", no actual facts."

I gave you quotes from and links to actual academic work on the slave status of women in aboriginal society, including examples supplied by people such as Lyndall Ryan who were completely pro-aboriginal but couldn't deny the obvious. I also gave you examples of aboriginal women being sold to whalers and Chinese traders who visited Arnhem.

As to the Maori, when they conquered the Chatham islands and massacred some of the inhabitants and enslaved the remainder (including taking the women as sexual slaves) not only did they defend the action but claimed that it was allowable because enslaving defeated people was a long standing part of Maori culture. Should they be paying compensation to the decedents?